96-669 La.App. 3 Cir. 2/19/97, Trahan v. McManus

Decision Date19 February 1997
Parties96-669 La.App. 3 Cir
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1997.

J. Minos Simon, Lafayette, for Lawrence Trahan and Marie Trahan.

Joel Edward Gooch, Lafayette, for Dr. Robert McManus, M.D., et al.

Before WOODARD, DECUIR, PETERS, AMY and SULLIVAN, JJ.

[96-669 La.App. 3 Cir. 1] WOODARD, Judge.

Lawrence and Marie Trahan, the parents of a 36-year-old man who died after he was mistakenly discharged from the hospital after being involved in an auto accident, brought suit against the doctor who ordered the discharge. The jury denied plaintiffs' relief. We reverse and award each plaintiff $100,000.00 in damages plus interest and costs.

FACTS

On August 17, 1991, Terry Trahan, 36, was taken to American Legion Hospital, in Crowley, Louisiana after being injured in a single-vehicle automobile accident. The hospital called Lawrence and Marie Trahan, Terry's parents, to inform them of the accident and to request that they come to the hospital to retrieve their son. Terry Trahan was living with his parents at the time of the accident. The family had a very close and loving relationship. After being informed of the accident, Mrs. Trahan drove to the hospital's emergency room. Although Terry had been attended [96-669 La.App. 3 Cir. 2] to and had received bandages and stitches, Mrs. Trahan noticed that her son appeared to be in pain. Mrs. Trahan consulted with Dr. McManus, the emergency room physician who treated Terry. McManus assured Mrs. Trahan that it would be all right to take her son home as there was nothing more that could be done for him at the hospital. McManus advised Mrs. Trahan to put Terry to bed and to see that he got lots of rest.

Upon ordering the discharge, however, McManus had not realized that he had made a grave and ultimately fatal mistake. McManus had looked at the wrong chart in determining Terry's status and consequently was ignorant of Terry's true condition. First, Terry had three broken ribs as a result of the accident. This injury was not diagnosed although x-rays were taken. Second, the chart McManus had looked at indicated that the patient's vital signs were normal. In fact, Terry's blood pressure was 90/60, indicative of shock, when he was admitted to the hospital. Forty-five minutes after being admitted, Terry's blood pressure had dropped to 80/50 and his respiration rate had doubled. Terry's vital signs clearly indicated that he was suffering from internal hemorrhaging.

After being discharged from the hospital, Terry Trahan had to be helped from the wheelchair into Mrs. Trahan's pickup truck. During the drive home, he continuously slumped over onto Mrs. Trahan as she was driving. Upon arrival at the Trahan home, Mr. Trahan greeted the vehicle in the driveway. He and his wife helped their son into the house and to bed. In the seven hours following his discharge, Terry's condition continued to worsen. Terry complained to his parents about severe pain. He could not turn from his back to his side without the aid of his father. Throughout this ordeal, Lawrence Trahan attempted unsuccessfully to ease his son's pain by massaging his back.

Several hours after being brought home from the hospital, Lawrence Trahan noticed that Terry's abdomen was swelling. Marie Trahan immediately called the hospital. While Mrs. Trahan was on the telephone, Mr. Trahan again attempted to ease his son's pain. Mr. Trahan asked Terry if he wanted to sit up. Terry replied, "Well, we can try." Those were Terry's final words. Terry slumped in his father's arms and his head fell forward. When Mr. Trahan attempted to lift Terry's head, Terry's face was white. Mr. Trahan immediately laid his son down on the bed realizing for the first time that his son was not breathing and had no pulse. Mr. [96-669 La.App. 3 Cir. 3] Trahan attempted CPR as Mrs. Trahan called for an ambulance. Mr. Trahan continued CPR until the ambulance arrived a few minutes later. Terry Trahan was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

Subsequently, during the medical review panel proceeding in which the Trahans participated, McManus admitted liability to the wife and child of Terry Trahan, by tendering his $100,000.00 limit of liability, pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act.

On March 12, 1993, the Trahans filed their own claim against McManus, pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 2315.6. Subsequently, McManus filed exceptions of no right and no cause of action, claiming that La.Civ.Code art. 2315.6 remedies are not available to the parents when a decedent is survived by a spouse and child. Alternatively, McManus contended that the parents did not witness the event causing the injury and therefore, were not entitled to recovery under the statute. On November 19, 1993, the trial judge granted defendants' exception of no right and no cause of action. On March 22, 1995, we reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for trial on the merits. Trahan v. McManus, 94-167 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/22/95); 653 So.2d 89, cert. denied, 95-1018 (La.6/2/95); 654 So.2d 1112.

Following the remand of this action, trial was held on March 12 and 13, 1996. A twelve-person jury returned a verdict absolving McManus of any liability, finding that Terry Trahan's injuries would have occurred despite McManus' failure to use reasonable care in his treatment of Terry Trahan. It is from the judgment entered on March 25, 1996, implementing the jury's verdict, that the Trahan's bring this second appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The Trahans claim the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in charging the jury with instructions drawn verbatim from La.R.S. 9:2794, the statute setting forth the burden of proof which must be carried by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action, because:

[96-669 La.App. 3 Cir. 4] a) The Trahans' claim for damages for emotional distress for injury to their son did not constitute a medical malpractice action; and,

(b) Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.6(B) explicitly provides that article 2315.6 is the exclusive means by which the damages claimed by the Trahans in this lawsuit can be recovered.

2. The trial court thereby erred in failing to instruct the jury that there can be more than one cause of an injury sufficient to make the negligence of a tortfeasor actionable.

3. The jury, and thereby the trial court in implementing the jury's verdict, erred in failing to conclude that plaintiffs proved that Dr. McManus' conduct was a cause in fact of Terry Trahan's death.

4. The jury, and thereby the trial court in implementing the jury's verdict, erred in failing to make an award of damages to plaintiffs.

LAW
MANIFEST ERROR

It is well-settled that an appellate court may not set aside a trial court's findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless they are clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (citing Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989)). In Stobart, the Louisiana Supreme Court established a two-part test which must be satisfied before an appellate court can reverse a fact-finders determination:

(1) The appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and

(2) The appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).

Id. at 882. The test requires an appellate court to do more than simply review the record for evidence that validates or disproves the factual findings of the trial court. [96-669 La.App. 3 Cir. 5] Id. (citing Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987)). The test demands that the reviewing court scrutinize the record in its entirety to determine whether the trial court's findings of fact were clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Id.; Evans v. Tudor Constr., 95-1029 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/96); 670 So.2d 447. As this Court recently stated in Evans:

To reverse the judge or jury on its finding of fact, we must both find, after a review of the record in its entirety, that there is no factual basis for its finding, and that the finding is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. The issue is not whether the judge or jury is right or wrong; it is whether the conclusion was reasonable.

670 So.2d at 450 (citing Stobart, 617 So.2d 880). A trial court's reasonable determinations and inferences of fact are not to be disturbed solely because a reviewing court may feel that its own evaluations are more reasonable than those of the factfinder. Stobart, 617 So.2d 880, (citing Rosell, supra; Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978)).

This well-settled standard of review stems from the trial court's unique opportunity to evaluate live witnesses and on the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts. Evans, 670 So.2d 447, (citing Stobart, 617 So.2d 880). While the trial court is in a better position to evaluate and assess the credibility of witnesses, the overriding determination for the court of appeal is whether these determinations are reasonable. Id.Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989); Law v. City of Eunice, 94-1312 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/95); 653 So.2d 149. We shall first consider Assignments of Error 3 and 4, as the determination of these issues will prove dispositive of the case before us.

TRAHAN I

This case was first brought before us on appeal in Trahan v. McManus, 94-167 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/22/95); 653 So.2d 89, cert. denied, 95-1018 (La.6/2/95); 654 So.2d 1112 [hereinafter Trahan I ]. Our review in Trahan I was limited to determining [96-669 La.App. 3 Cir. 6] whether the trial court erred in granting defendants' exceptions of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • 97-1542 La.App. 3 Cir. 3/10/99, Edwards v. Daugherty
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • March 10, 1999
    ... ... 3 Cir.), writ denied, 629 So.2d 355 (La.1993); Trahan v. McManus, 96-669 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/19/97), 689 So.2d 696 ... ...
  • Edwards v. Daugherty
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • March 10, 1999
    ... ... was rear-ended by Daugherty and her insurer; (3) the driver (Gary Bailey) who rearended the ... Sloane v. Davis, 619 So.2d 585 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 629 So.2d 355 (La.1993) ; ahan v. McManus, 96-669 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/19/97), 689 So.2d 696 ... ...
  • Kipps v. Caillier
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • December 6, 1999
    ...197 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 1999) ... REXFORD KIPPS, CAROL KIPPS AND KYLE ...         3. Did the district court commit reversible error ...         In Trahan v. McManus, 728 So. 2d 1273 (La. 1999), rev'g 689 ... ...
  • Perry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • December 14, 2016
    ... ... No. 1 , 111147 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/8/12), 90 So.3d 534, 536, writ denied , 121545 ... Id. at 428.On the other hand, in Trahan v. McManus , 971224 (La. 3/2/99), 728 So.2d 1273, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT